MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Interpreting Aristotle’s <i>Posterior Analytics</i> in Late Antiquity and Beyond

2015· article· en· W48035321 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
F.A.J. de Haas, Mariska Leunissen, Marije Martijn, Sten Ebbesen

Bibliographic record

VenueAestimatio Sources and Studies in the History of Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicClassical Philosophy and Thought
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalyticsLate AntiquityPhilosophyArtComputer scienceData scienceClassics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Part I CONCEPT FORMATION IN POSTERIOR ANALYTICS II 19 1. The Ancient Commentators on Concept Formation Richard Sorabji 2. Proclus' Criticism of Aristotle'sTheory of Abstraction and Concept Formation in Analytica Posteriora II 19 Christoph Helmig 3. Eustratius' Comments on Posterior Analytics II 19 Katerina Ierodiakonou 4. Roger Bacon on Experiment, Induction and Intellect in his Reception of Analytica Posteriora II 19 Pia A. Antolic-Piper Part II METAPHYSICS AS A SCIENCE 5. Alexander of Aphrodisias on the Science of Ontology Maddalena Bonelli 6. Les Seconds Analytique' dans le commentaire de Syrianus sur la Metaphysique d'Aristote Angela Longo Part III DEMONSTRATION, DEFINITION AND CAUSATION 7. Alexander and Philoponus on Prior Analytics I 27-30: Is There Tension between Aristotle's Scientific Theory and Practice? Miira Tuominen 8. Two Traditions in the Ancient Posterior Analytics Commentaries Owen Goldin 9. Aristotle and Philoponus on Final Causes in Demonstrations in Posterior Analytics II 11 Mariska Leunissen 10. Aristotle on Causation and Conditional Necessity: Analytica Posteriora II 12 in Context Inna Kupreeva

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.021
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAestimatio Sources and Studies in the History of ScienceSame topicClassical Philosophy and ThoughtFrench-language works237,207